Rygiel v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Rygiel v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2003-Ohio-4293.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO THERESE M. RYGIEL : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-04911-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 4 : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} 1) On February 20, 2003, at approximately 5:40 p.m., Therese M. Rygiel, was traveling north on Interstate 77 between mileposts 134.00 and 135.00 in Summit County when her automobile struck a huge pothole causing tire and wheel damage to the vehicle. {¶2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $735.07, the cost of automobile repair which plaintiff contends she incurred as a result of negligence on the part of defendant, Department of Transportation, in maintaining the roadway. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee with the complaint. {¶3} 3) Defendant has denied liability based on the fact it had no knowledge of the pothole prior to plaintiff s property damage occurrence. {¶4} February Defendant 4) Defendant 20, 2003 submitted asserted regarding a the document a complaint was received pothole on Interstate which is essentially memorialization of this pothole complaint. on 77. a The information in the document contains language the pothole was observed on February 19, 2003? around inconclusive appeared. p.m. resolve to 5:45 the This issue particular of when the information pothole is first Therefore, the trier of fact will not be dissuaded from defendant s assertions concerning lack of notice of the pothole condition. {¶5} 5) Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to indicate the length of time the pothole existed prior to the incident forming the basis of this claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶6} 1) Defendant had the duty to keep roads in a safe, drivable condition. Amica Mutual v. Dept. of Transportation (1982), 81-02289-AD. {¶7} plaintiff 2) In must order prove to recover either: on 1) a claim defendant of had this type, actual or constructive notice of the defect (pothole) and failed to respond in a reasonable time or responded in a negligent manner, or 2) that defendant, in a general sense, maintains its highways negligently. Denis v. Department of Transportation (1976), 75-0287-AD. {¶8} 3) There is no evidence that defendant had actual notice of the damage-causing pothole. {¶9} 4) The trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant s constructive notice, unless evidence is presented in respect to the time the defective condition(pothole) developed. Spires v. Highway Department (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. {¶10} 5) notice or Size of the defect (pothole) is insufficient to show duration of existence. O Neil v. Department of Transportation (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 297. {¶11} 6) In order for there to be constructive notice, plaintiff must show sufficient time has elapsed after the dangerous condition (pothole) appears, so that under the circumstances, defendant should have acquired knowledge of its existence. Guiher v. Jackson (1978), 78-0126-AD. {¶12} 7) No evidence has shown defendant had constructive notice of the pothole. {¶13} 8) Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to show defendant negligently maintained the roadway. {¶14} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. The court shall absorb the court costs of this case. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Therese M. Rygiel 16116 Shurmer Road Strongsville, Ohio Plaintiff, Pro se 44136 Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 RDK/DRB/laa 7/16 Filed 7/24/03 Sent to S.C. reporter 8/14/03 For Defendant
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
